Free body diagram for hinged rods

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the challenge of deriving the dynamics equations for a double pendulum without using Lagrange methods. The main issue arises from the connection point of the two rods, which lacks mass, leading to uncertainty about using a Free Body Diagram. The user questions whether they can apply the diagram with only the tensions of the rods present at the pivot. They compare their findings with a referenced paper that includes a mass between the rods, noting discrepancies when setting the mass to zero. Clarification is sought on whether their approach is flawed, emphasizing the need for detailed calculations to assess the situation accurately.
joes1987
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello all!

First post! I've been meaning to join this board for a while. I'm an electronic engineer with interests in physics.

I set myself the challenge of trying to obtain the dynamics equations for a double pendulum setup without using Lagrange. (configuration in attached picture)

The issue I seem to be having centres around the point at which the 2 rods are connected. I don't have a mass at this point. Does this mean I cannot use a normal Free Body Diagram? If I am allowed to, then I have only 2 forces at this pivot point (I think!) - the tensions of each rod. However, I was looking at this link: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/gonzalez/Teaching/Phys7221/DoublePendulum.pdf
which does a pretty similar problem using Newtons laws, the only difference is that they have a mass between the two rods. However, when I look at their equations (32) and (33) which are Newton's laws on the free-body diagram of this junction, and reduce the mass (m1) to zero, I don't get the same equation as I have.

When I work it out independently, I get: T1 = T2*cos(a - b), whereas the equations from that paper just don't make any sense when I set m1 = 0.

Am I doing something silly?

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • pendulum.JPG
    pendulum.JPG
    4 KB · Views: 520
Physics news on Phys.org
joes1987 said:
Am I doing something silly?
Probably, but if you don't show us exactly what you did, we cannot be sure.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top